New Line Cinema | Release Date: December 19, 2001
9.1
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 1563 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,472
Mixed:
45
Negative:
46
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
7
ZerpnosMar 5, 2017
Sinema tarihinin Kült filmlerinden olan Yüzüklerin Efendisinin ilk filmi olan Yüzük Kardeşliği;
Fantastik, Orta çağ ve edebiyat seven biri olarak bence beklentilerimi karşılamıyor. İlk film olarak konuyu anlatım açısından gayet yeterli olan
Sinema tarihinin Kült filmlerinden olan Yüzüklerin Efendisinin ilk filmi olan Yüzük Kardeşliği;
Fantastik, Orta çağ ve edebiyat seven biri olarak bence beklentilerimi karşılamıyor. İlk film olarak konuyu anlatım açısından gayet yeterli olan film Aksiyonu fazla veremiyor ve İyi bir film oluyor.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
Thatonenerd2187Jan 20, 2017
This film is one of Peter Jackson's best directed films, as he directs such an amazing film. The story itself has a great start to it, as it takes it's time to develop the world and characters around them, especially since this film is wellThis film is one of Peter Jackson's best directed films, as he directs such an amazing film. The story itself has a great start to it, as it takes it's time to develop the world and characters around them, especially since this film is well paced. All of the characters are very well developed and have a very clear set of personality's. The action scenes are very exciting and well directed that you feel the tension for these characters. As a film it succeeds very well as it's well shot and almost flawless acting. Overall, this film succeeds and I would recommend this to anyone, except if you have a short attention spam. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
DenathornDec 22, 2016
A classic that everyone has seen, and that everyone enjoyed to some extent. I believe Peter Jackson executed it perfectly, however the whole trilogy almost started a cliche in movies. Still, incredible.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
gNov 19, 2016
A masterpiece tale of Tolkien's imagination. Magnificent directing by Peter Jackson of growing this as a bug-budget film trilogies of all time. Better than The Hobbit. One of these masterpiece films you've got to see. Brilliant adaptations.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
Muskrat147Oct 23, 2016
An incredible adaptation of the first chapter of J.R.R. Tolkien's masterpiece, Peter Jackson's The Fellowship of the Ring captivates with its dazzling visuals and fascinating story.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
GMReviewsSep 10, 2016
The first entry in the Lord Of The Rings trilogy is a ground-breaking achievement in cinema. This film was in my opinion, perfect. You are immediately introduced to this stunning, fantasy world, which has been directed so well andThe first entry in the Lord Of The Rings trilogy is a ground-breaking achievement in cinema. This film was in my opinion, perfect. You are immediately introduced to this stunning, fantasy world, which has been directed so well and cinematographed ingeniously, that you never want to leave it. The very talented cast definitely add that great sense of realism to the world, appearing ultimately convincing in their roles they play so ingeniously. The special effects were done strikingly well, with the monsters looking life like, especially because of the crisp direction. The action in this film knows where it needs to be to fit in with the captivating drama, and finally, despite this being a very long film, and being a very good film - I'd usually say this almost four hour film flew by in a breeze, but I could acknowledge that this film was four hours long and it felt four hours long to me, but I didn't want it to end. I give this film a 10/10. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
MasterRileyJul 20, 2016
Wow. Amazing, this is. Whoops, sorry, wrong movie series. The Fellowship of the Ring is an amazing start to Tolkien's novels that has an amazing script, a great cast, great performances, great effects, great action, great music, and greatWow. Amazing, this is. Whoops, sorry, wrong movie series. The Fellowship of the Ring is an amazing start to Tolkien's novels that has an amazing script, a great cast, great performances, great effects, great action, great music, and great world building. And the great thing is that the next two movies are just as good. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Aaron_WassermanMay 30, 2016
Personally, my favorite of the Lord of the Rings movies, this movie while, like its sequels, is very long, this one manages to keep me into the story the whole time. I can not say the same for the next films.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
aadityamudharApr 17, 2016
I'm a bit confused with some of the criticism of this movie..."the same scene over and over again..." That line is repeated in several reviews. Huh? Which scene was that? It appears that this is just the same movie review, over and overI'm a bit confused with some of the criticism of this movie..."the same scene over and over again..." That line is repeated in several reviews. Huh? Which scene was that? It appears that this is just the same movie review, over and over again. And our old friend "character development" gets trotted out as another example of the shortcomings of this film. Folks, give it a chance. As someone earlier mentioned, it's a trilogy. I could already see changes at work in several characters in just the first film. And sometimes, even in the most respected films, characters DON'T develop or change. They just are what they are, and here's their story. Don't mistake plot development for character development. I had no desire to see this film when it came out. I'd tried to read the books way back when I was in college, but just couldn't get into them (I've never been much of a Fantasy fan). My husband, however, is a major LOTR fan, and convinced me to go. I've seen it 4 times since then, and can't wait for the DVD and the new installment in December. Now, I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'm not a child, nor do I have the intellect of one, and yet I found the film exciting, funny, moving, thought-provoking, and just plain FUN. (And so did my husband, the big LOTR fan.) I cared about the characters and found them compelling. And I had no problem with the ending. Of course, different strokes for different folks! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
MovieMasterEddyApr 17, 2016
“The Fellowship of the Ring,” the first installment in Peter Jackson’s vigorous and faithful adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s trilogy, looks to please the book’s legions of fans with its imaginatively scrupulous rendering of the tome’s“The Fellowship of the Ring,” the first installment in Peter Jackson’s vigorous and faithful adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s trilogy, looks to please the book’s legions of fans with its imaginatively scrupulous rendering of the tome’s characters and worlds on the screen, as well as the uninitiated with its uninterrupted flow of incident and spectacle.

Partially adapted for the screen once before by Ralph Bakshi in an unsuccessful 1978 animated version, Tolkien’s 1,000-page yarn poses all manner of challenges for a screen transfer — imaginative, logistical and financial. With the final bill likely to come in somewhere near $400 million when production and marketing costs are all tallied, one has to credit New Line Cinema with a tremendous amount of guts for shooting the moon for all three pictures with a young New Zealand director with only one genuinely notable, and small-scaled, film (“Heavenly Creatures”) to his credit.

But Jackson must have convinced someone that he would do it right, a view thoroughly borne out by what’s up on the screen. Evocatively delineating the many aspects of Middle-Earth on tremendously diverse locations in New Zealand in resourceful collaboration with a massive crew, Jackson keeps a firm hand on the work’s central themes of good versus evil, rising to the occasion and group loyalty in the face of adversity, and always keeps things moving without getting bogged down in frills or effects for effects’ sake.

Pic’s main problem, however, is inherent in the odyssey-like structure of the tale; the “and then, and then, and then” nature of the narrative becomes necessarily repetitive and even a bit wearisome at times, and ultimately arbitrary in the sense that one battle more or less with the Orcs, Ringwraiths or Uruk-Hai wouldn’t have made much difference. Lack of dramatic arcs involving rising action, relaxation and interconnecting story strands unfortunately makes the film’s running time feel pretty much like the three hours it is.

It’s all about the ring, of course, the One Ring which, in a potent prologue that out-mummies “The Mummy” in terms of sweeping combat, is shown being forged by the malevolent Sauron as a source of dark power, being lost in battle and finally disappearing for 3,000 years until it’s retrieved by an unlikely Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm). Perfectly mirroring the opening chapters of the book as if to reassure the faithful millions that its intentions are honorable, film depicts old Bilbo being urged by his old friend, the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen), to leave the ring behind for his adopted nephew Frodo (Elijah Wood), who has now come of age but knows nothing of the ring, its legacy or power.

Early stretches are obliged to pack in a great deal of exposition, but screenwriters Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Jackson make it go down easily by mixing in agreeable doses of action and character work. Bilbo takes off but Gandalf keeps turning up whenever he’s needed to mentor the reluctant Ringbearer, who, with his best friend Sam (Sean Astin) and mirthsome buddies Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd), set out from the Shire with one purpose: to return the ring to Mount Doom in dreaded Mordor, where it was created and the only place it can be destroyed, so as to save civilization from the full force of evil that would be unleashed should it fall back into the wrong hands.

Much, of course, stands in their way. For starters, the ring itself “wants” to be returned to evildoers who can fulfill its potential, forces now represented by turncoat wizard Saruman (Christopher Lee), who gathers an army of fearsome fighting monsters in order to capture the gold. There are also relentless Dark Riders, marauding swordsmen, natural catastrophes and airborne spies, which give Saruman a clear picture of where they are.

After innumerable confrontations, fights and close shaves — most cinematically notable an exciting chase in which Arwen, with an injured Frodo onboard, outflanks a posse of Dark Riders — “Fellowship” has its first climax in the Mines of Moria, a corpse-strewn complex of caves and vaulting chambers where the valiant band is attacked by ghastly Orcs, including one giant ogre who looks like the illegitimate brother of a supporting player in “Harry Potter.” Once the group has made its daring escape, it is attacked again in a forest, from which Frodo must flee before setting out for Mordor and the sequel, “The Two Towers.”

The film also very well handles the matter of perspective and height differentiation between the Hobbits and Dwarfs.

While he has perhaps not written a classic epic adventure score in the manner of Korngold, Rozsa or Steiner, Howard Shore has composed two hours of music that is constantly supportive, creative and complementary to the action. As such, it represents an object lesson that handily points up how unnecessarily intrusive and insufferably distracting John Williams’ work is in “Harry Potter.”
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
MovieMasterEdMar 22, 2016
Partially adapted for the screen once before by Ralph Bakshi in an unsuccessful 1978 animated version, Tolkien’s 1,000-page yarn poses all manner of challenges for a screen transfer — imaginative, logistical and financial. With the final billPartially adapted for the screen once before by Ralph Bakshi in an unsuccessful 1978 animated version, Tolkien’s 1,000-page yarn poses all manner of challenges for a screen transfer — imaginative, logistical and financial. With the final bill likely to come in somewhere near $400 million when production and marketing costs are all tallied, one has to credit New Line Cinema with a tremendous amount of guts for shooting the moon for all three pictures with a young New Zealand director with only one genuinely notable, and small-scaled, film (“Heavenly Creatures”) to his credit.

But Jackson must have convinced someone that he would do it right, a view thoroughly borne out by what’s up on the screen. Evocatively delineating the many aspects of Middle-Earth on tremendously diverse locations in New Zealand in resourceful collaboration with a massive crew, Jackson keeps a firm hand on the work’s central themes of good versus evil, rising to the occasion and group loyalty in the face of adversity, and always keeps things moving without getting bogged down in frills or effects for effects’ sake.

Pic’s main problem, however, is inherent in the odyssey-like structure of the tale; the “and then, and then, and then” nature of the narrative becomes necessarily repetitive and even a bit wearisome at times, and ultimately arbitrary in the sense that one battle more or less with the Orcs, Ringwraiths or Uruk-Hai wouldn’t have made much difference. Lack of dramatic arcs involving rising action, relaxation and interconnecting story strands unfortunately makes the film’s running time feel pretty much like the three hours it is.

The film also very well handles the matter of perspective and height differentiation between the Hobbits and Dwarfs, for example, who are meant to be less than four feet tall, and the human-scaled characters, something that must have been as difficult as many other more obvious effects. Andrew Lesnie’s lensing has its slightly murky moments but is predominantly muscular in putting forceful images on a large canvas.

While he has perhaps not written a classic epic adventure score in the manner of Korngold, Rozsa or Steiner, Howard Shore has composed two hours of music that is constantly supportive, creative and complementary to the action. As such, it represents an object lesson that handily points up how unnecessarily intrusive and insufferably distracting John Williams’ work is in “Harry Potter.”

One place where “Harry” outflanks “Rings” is the in the starriness of its cast, but the film is nonetheless capably served. One hallmark of the players is their startlingly blue eyes, especially those of Wood, McKellen and Blanchett. Wood’s Frodo spends most of “Fellowship” coming to terms with his unwanted responsibility as Ringbearer, and is generally uncertain and frightened as a result, something that will no doubt change over the course of the two remaining installments. McKellen delivers Gandalf with great relish and gusto, giving the picture a shot in the arm whenever he’s around, which is often. Mortensen and Bean cut dynamic figures as Frodo’s expert swordsmen, Rhys-Davies is a barrel of fierce defiance, while horror vet Lee is silkilysuperb as the chief nemesis in a black tower. Blanchett and Tyler have relatively little to do, at least in this first episode, and the small attempts at humor, particularly with the tag-alongs Merry and Pippin, seem half-hearted and rote.

Still, New Line and company should be able to breathe a sigh of relief after the picture comes out, and there is little doubt that those who grab the “Rings” at the start will anxiously await Frodo’s trip into ever more perilous territory a year hence.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
9
CinemassacreMar 13, 2016
In the late 1990s, New Zealand-based director Peter Jackson (Heavenly Creatures) had two projects on the drawing board - a remake of King Kong and an ambitious, three-film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. For a while, it looked like KingIn the late 1990s, New Zealand-based director Peter Jackson (Heavenly Creatures) had two projects on the drawing board - a remake of King Kong and an ambitious, three-film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. For a while, it looked like King Kong would get the go-ahead, but the project was squashed in the wake of the failure of Sony's Godzilla and Disney's Mighty Joe Young. So, Jackson turned his attention to The Lord of the Rings. After briefly being courted and jilted by Miramax Films, Jackson found a backer in New Line Cinema. The Time-Warner company invested nearly $300 million for the package deal of all three movies, which were filmed back-to-back-to-back. (Including publicity and marketing, the overall price tag will approach $500 million.)

To say that fantasy movies have not been a big draw at the box office is to understate the matter. A lot of this has had to do with the poor quality of the product. Consider the evidence: titles like Willow, Dragonheart, and Dungeons and Dragons. Finally, 2001 has seen the belated emergence of fantasy as a legitimate cinematic genre. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was one of the year's most anticipated releases and, by the end of December, it will be one of the top money-makers of the past 12 months. Now, along comes The Lord of the Rings, as anticipated for 30-50 year olds and Harry Potter was for their children.

As entertaining as Harry Potter may be, it cannot hold a candle to The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. With this production, Jackson has used The Lord of the Rings to re-invent fantasy for the cinema in the same way that the novel provided the blueprint for the written word. This astounding movie accomplishes what no other fantasy film has been able to do: transport viewers to an entirely different reality, immerse them in it, and maroon them there for nearly three hours. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring brings Middle Earth to glorious life. From the first moment of the first reel, I was there.

First and foremost, The Lord of the Rings is an adventure, and, in that, it is relentlessly successful. One does not need to have read the books to appreciate the movie. The background is explained concisely in a voiceover prologue, and the action proceeds in a straightforward manner. As long as one enjoys a well-crafted adventure yarn set against the backdrop of a mythical clash between good and evil, The Lord of the Rings will satisfy. Like all great movies of this sort, this one is characterized by tremendous action scenes punctuated by moments of rest and reflection. So, we have the flight from the Shire, followed by the council at Rivendell, followed by the hazardous trek through Moria (the movie's high point), followed by the encounter with Galadriel, followed by the sundering of the fellowship. Along the way, there is triumph, sorrow, and a little philosophical depth. The Lord of the Rings emphasizes two themes: the importance of brotherhood and the need for true strength to come from within.

In crafting his vision of Middle Earth, Jackson has employed all of the tricks available to him: miniatures, deceptive camera angles, location shooting, impressive set design, and matte paintings. He has also made use of computer graphics, but not to the extent that another director might have. Thus, The Lord of the Rings has a less artificial appearance than might have been the case if Jackson had relied too heavily on CGI technology. Andrew Lesnie's camerawork has the grand scope expected in an epic motion picture, and Howard Shore's score, which is at times heroic and at times thoughtful, compliments the visuals without ever calling attention to itself.

The Lord of the Rings is not an actors' movie, but each member of the cast acquits himself or herself well. Of special note are Ian McKellan, who presents Gandalf as a vulnerable and sympathetic figure; Ian Holm, whose Bilbo Baggins is a weary and tortured individual; and Elijah Wood, who shows the gradual changes in Frodo as he is transformed from a carefree hobbit to the person upon whom the fate of the world rests. Some recognizable names fill small roles - Liv Tyler is surprisingly good as Arwen; Cate Blanchett is cool and regal as Galadriel; and Christopher Lee brings his chilling presence to the part of the treacherous, traitorous Sauruman.

The strength of Jackson's vision as depicted in The Fellowship of the Ring gives movie-goers cause to hope that we may be in the midst of a cinematic achievement. If The Two Towers and The Return of the King live up to the standard set by this film, The Lord of the Rings will become a milestone not only for its genre, but for motion pictures in general. But, regardless of what the future brings, the single movie we now have before us stands out as one of the most rousing examples of entertainment to reach multiplexes in a long time. At last, someone has figured out how to do an epic fantasy justice on the big screen.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
gameguardian21Mar 7, 2016
A amazing start to an amazing trilogy. You already get interested in the word and its characters, with its action scenes being entertaining as well. This is a must watch if you love good movies, or if you have read the book.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
MaciejCichoszFeb 17, 2016
"The Fellowship of the Ring" proved to be the beginning of an immersive and beautiful adventure that set out for years. As a child I was astonished, the world of Middle-Earth became my obsession and a hobby. Now, nearly 15 years later I"The Fellowship of the Ring" proved to be the beginning of an immersive and beautiful adventure that set out for years. As a child I was astonished, the world of Middle-Earth became my obsession and a hobby. Now, nearly 15 years later I recall "The Fellowship of the Ring" as one of the most inspiring movies ever made. Peter Jackson and his crew did the impossible on making this film - they recreated the world from words into something larger and touchable and vivid.

To me, personally, "the Lord of the Rings" trilogy became the apex of the fantasy film-making and is still unbeatable and looked up to. It left an unremovable mark on the cinematography and on my heart as it is a touching and moving picture that transcends from words, from acting and visuals into emotions. A one of a kind masterpiece.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
choomtabi31Feb 9, 2016
Watched this movie countless times and its still one of my favorites its truly a timeless film.

Watch it online for free: https://www.primewire.ag/watch-353-The-Lord-of-the-Rings-The-Fellowship-of-the-Ring-online-free
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
ThatCooperGuyJan 15, 2016
I've been meaning to watch "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy for a while and I finally got around to watching the first film, "Fellowship of the Ring", and... I really liked it.

The acting was great, the cinematography was beautiful, Howard
I've been meaning to watch "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy for a while and I finally got around to watching the first film, "Fellowship of the Ring", and... I really liked it.

The acting was great, the cinematography was beautiful, Howard Shore's film score was fantastic, I liked the characters, I loved Gandalf, and I found the film's sense of adventure to be really amusing... despite it's over 3 1/2 hour runtime. I chose to watch the extended cut and I kinda regretted that decision. It's didn't make the movie unbearable or boring (I'm used to watching long films at this point), but I don't know... I'm sure I'd enjoy the theatrical cut better since it's almost an hour shorter, but did the extended cut's credits really have to be half an hour long?

I will definitely go back to watch this film again, well, the theatrical cut perhaps.

I'm not necessarily sure on where I'd rate the film. If I gave it a 7 or an 8 then it would be far too low. I'm not completely comfortable with giving it a perfect 10 (just yet, hopefully), sooooo... I think I'm settling with a good 9/10.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
TheMovieDoctorJan 7, 2016
In the pantheon of fantasy writers, no diety is treated with greater reverence than J.R.R. Tolkien, who is regarded by most readers as the Father of Modern Fantasy. During the past three decades, the fantasy area in bookstores has expandedIn the pantheon of fantasy writers, no diety is treated with greater reverence than J.R.R. Tolkien, who is regarded by most readers as the Father of Modern Fantasy. During the past three decades, the fantasy area in bookstores has expanded from a minor subsection of science fiction to a major category in its own right. A couple dozen titles have been replaced by hundreds. Fantasy has gone from being a cult genre to entering the mainstream. This would not have happened without the popularity and influence of Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Nearly every published fantasy author acknowledges having read and been inspired by Tolkien's canon, and, while The Lord of the Rings may not be the longest or most complex fantasy series to date, it remains the standard against which all similar works are measured. It is the epic fantasy series.

In the late 1990s, New Zealand-based director Peter Jackson (Heavenly Creatures) had two projects on the drawing board - a remake of King Kong and an ambitious, three-film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. For a while, it looked like King Kong would get the go-ahead, but the project was squashed in the wake of the failure of Sony's Godzilla and Disney's Mighty Joe Young. So, Jackson turned his attention to The Lord of the Rings. After briefly being courted and jilted by Miramax Films, Jackson found a backer in New Line Cinema. The Time-Warner company invested nearly $300 million for the package deal of all three movies, which were filmed back-to-back-to-back. (Including publicity and marketing, the overall price tag will approach $500 million.)

To say that fantasy movies have not been a big draw at the box office is to understate the matter. A lot of this has had to do with the poor quality of the product. Consider the evidence: titles like Willow, Dragonheart, and Dungeons and Dragons. Finally, 2001 has seen the belated emergence of fantasy as a legitimate cinematic genre. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was one of the year's most anticipated releases and, by the end of December, it will be one of the top money-makers of the past 12 months. Now, along comes The Lord of the Rings, as anticipated for 30-50 year olds and Harry Potter was for their children.

As entertaining as Harry Potter may be, it cannot hold a candle to The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. With this production, Jackson has used The Lord of the Rings to re-invent fantasy for the cinema in the same way that the novel provided the blueprint for the written word. This astounding movie accomplishes what no other fantasy film has been able to do: transport viewers to an entirely different reality, immerse them in it, and maroon them there for nearly three hours. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring brings Middle Earth to glorious life. From the first moment of the first reel, I was there.

Lord of the Rings devotees will be delighted to learn that the motion picture adaptation is as faithful as one could imagine possible (and, consequently, is nearly three hours in length). Jackson and his co-screenwriters (Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens) do an excellent job condensing more than five hundred pages of text into a script that never feels choppy, uneven, or rushed. The Fellowship of the Ring moves fluidly and, in the process, exhilarates. Certain scenes have been cut or condensed in the name of pacing, and the role of one character (Arwen) has been expanded to enhance a romantic angle, something that was largely absent from Tolkien's work.

First and foremost, The Lord of the Rings is an adventure, and, in that, it is relentlessly successful. One does not need to have read the books to appreciate the movie. The background is explained concisely in a voiceover prologue, and the action proceeds in a straightforward manner. As long as one enjoys a well-crafted adventure yarn set against the backdrop of a mythical clash between good and evil, The Lord of the Rings will satisfy. Like all great movies of this sort, this one is characterized by tremendous action scenes punctuated by moments of rest and reflection. So, we have the flight from the Shire, followed by the council at Rivendell, followed by the hazardous trek through Moria (the movie's high point), followed by the encounter with Galadriel, followed by the sundering of the fellowship. Along the way, there is triumph, sorrow, and a little philosophical depth. The Lord of the Rings emphasizes two themes: the importance of brotherhood and the need for true strength to come from within.

The Fellowship of the Ring gives movie-goers cause to hope that we may be in the midst of a cinematic achievement. If The Two Towers and The Return of the King live up to the standard set by this film, The Lord of the Rings will become a milestone not only for its genre, but for motion pictures in general. At last, someone has figured out how to do an epic fantasy justice on the big screen.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
EpicLadySpongeJan 5, 2016
If you want to start a fun adventure about the Lord of the Rings, start off here. It'll be a waste of your time, but who cares? Have fun watching this movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
anichelsJan 1, 2016
This is one of the greatest epics of all time. Simply amazing, Frodo isn't a fighter: can't wield a sword, shoot an arrow or do magic. So for him to be the main hero in this story is bewildering. I think that deep down, it shows us that fromThis is one of the greatest epics of all time. Simply amazing, Frodo isn't a fighter: can't wield a sword, shoot an arrow or do magic. So for him to be the main hero in this story is bewildering. I think that deep down, it shows us that from small, quaint qualities, great things can be achieved with help from friends.
That's what I took out of this movie/story anyways.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
reviewer2015lolDec 12, 2015
If this movie was a car, it would be a rolls royce. Pure perfection,amazing and the best movie of the year 2001. It's maybe dark and not everyone favorite but o my god it's a masterpiece. It's more than ten years old and it's still looks likeIf this movie was a car, it would be a rolls royce. Pure perfection,amazing and the best movie of the year 2001. It's maybe dark and not everyone favorite but o my god it's a masterpiece. It's more than ten years old and it's still looks like a movie that would come out now. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
Li0NoX_MCJul 22, 2015
An epic start to an awesome franchise. A little boring at first but then as the plot goes on it really proves that its an awesome introduction to a place filled lore and awesomeness!
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
DanilSirotkinJul 21, 2015
Определённо,- трилогия "Властелин Колец" является шедевром кино - (как и книга - шедевром литературы), и я абсолютно не понимаю людей, которым она не нравится. Естественно, эти фильмы стали культовыми, - а мной они засмотрены до дыр. Про нихОпределённо,- трилогия "Властелин Колец" является шедевром кино - (как и книга - шедевром литературы), и я абсолютно не понимаю людей, которым она не нравится. Естественно, эти фильмы стали культовыми, - а мной они засмотрены до дыр. Про них можно очень много писать, - и чем больше вы пишете, - тем больше вас захлёстывают эмоции, - и тем больше хочется писать. Теперь перейдём к рецензии на мой любимый фильм "Великой Трилогии", - на мой самый любимый фильм - фэнтези: Властелин Колец: Братство Кольца (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring). Вот честно - при просмотре этого фильма я нахожусь в состоянии экстаза. Когда я смотрел ВК маленьким, я не особо понимал сами фильмы, но я чувствовал, что перед моим взором предстоит что-то поистине великое. Видеоряд и музыка, меня в них, конечно, завораживали... Пересказывать сюжет фильма я не буду, - однако спойлеры всё равно будут. Однако, - я сомневаюсь, что этот фильм ещё кто-то не видел. Итак, "Братство" - самый неспешный фильм из трех, однако же и самый волшебный и близкий к духу Толкина. В нём - наименьшее количество компьютерной графики из всех экранизаций Толкина. (Для сравнения: в первом фильме - 540 кадров со спецэффектами, в третьем - 1488). Так что сами видите: хоть трилогию и стоит считать единым фильмом, - рассматривать их лучше по отдельности. Сюжет - всем известен: Фродо достаётся кольцо от Бильбо, Гэндальф узнаёт, что это не простое волшебное кольцо - а Кольцо Всевластья, которое подчиняется только Саурону, - Тёмному Властелину. После ухода Бильбо, Гэндальф передаёт кольцо Фродо, говорит, чтобы он унёс его из Шира, и договаривается с ним о встрече в таверне "Гарцующий Пони". Фродо выступает вместе с Сэмом в путь, и вот тут-то и начинаются приключения. Скажете: "И что тут особенного?" И вы были бы правы, если бы сказали это не прочитав книги или не посмотрев фильмы полностью. Узнав же историю до конца, перед вами предстала бы великая картина. Углубляясь же в сюжет ещё глубже, вы осознали бы, что Властелин Колец - это, по сути, "слоёный пирог" о добре и зле, дружбе и преданности, отваге и чести, благородстве и героизме, любви к природе, к дому, о смерти... Но самый главный смысл (на моё мнение) я поведаю в рецензии на 3-й фильм. Мой любимый эпизод в фильме - это эпизод в Мории - заброшенном и удивительно прекрасном царстве гномов, когда герои заходят в Дварроуделф, у меня замирает сердце. Ну и конечно шикарный эпизод с Балрогом. "Ты не пройдёшь!" - ("You shall not pass!"), - говорит само за себя. Ну и конечно шикарный, грустный и одновременно радостный финал с Боромиром и отплытием Фродо. Я скажу так: "Жить ради самого существования этого фильма, - уже неплохо, ибо он придаёт сил." По поводу актёров: все они БЕСПОДОБНЫ, кроме Элайджи Вуда (который мало чем похож на книжного Фродо). Иэн Маккеллен - идеальный Гэндальф, Кристофер Ли - светлая ему память - идеальный Саруман, Вигго Мортенсен (которому, к слову, больше нравится первый фильм трилогии) - идеальный Арагорн. Шон Бин в роли Боромира - очень харзматичный, удивительно сильный и слабый одновременно. Хьюго Уивинг (кто бы что не говорил), - для меня идеальный, мудрый эльф. Сэм - идеальный друг. Всё в этом фильме идеально, нет ни малейшего недостатка. И даже к Фродо привыкаешь. За всё это, говорю спасибо Питеру Джексону (режиссёр), съёмочной группе, актёрам, композитору (одному из 2-х моих любимых) Говарду Шору за поистине шедевральную музыку, и отдельное спасибо Толкину, за величайшее произведение жанра фэнтези. Подводя к концу мой разговор с вами о "Братстве Кольца" (рецензией это уже сложно назвать), я хочу, чтобы вы безаговорочно уяснили: 1) - этот фильм - КЛАССИКА, 2) - в этом фильме заключена ВЕЛИКАЯ СИЛА (что это, пусть пока каждый решает сам), 3) - вы должны ЖИТЬ С НИМ, неся его в своём сердце, и хотя бы ежегодно его пересматривать. Уверяю вас, трилогия Властелин Колец ПРИДАЁТ СИЛ, - и вовсе не обязательно смотреть фильмы, - нужно лишь послушать музыку из них или посмотреть трейлеры. Итак - ВК - один из 2-х моих самых любимых фильмов - (наравне с сагой о Гарри Поттере), Братство Кольца же, - самый близкий к духу Толкина фильм из гексалогии Джексона, и мой любимый из трилогии о Кольце. Ну, и после всего мною написанного, как думаете, рекомендую ли я этот фильм? :) 100/100 или 10/10.(или 5/5 или 4/4). Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
JohnMasterLJul 20, 2015
The Fellowship of the Ring es poderosa, épica y mágica. La primera parte de la trilogía es perfecta en todos los aspectos, un espectáculo fantasioso repleto de secuencias inesperadas e impactantes. Peter Jackson no solo creo una película,The Fellowship of the Ring es poderosa, épica y mágica. La primera parte de la trilogía es perfecta en todos los aspectos, un espectáculo fantasioso repleto de secuencias inesperadas e impactantes. Peter Jackson no solo creo una película, creo un clásico. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
beeblebroxJun 30, 2015
The Fellowship of the Ring was truly a masterpiece among fantasy films. The music was powerful, action scenes were coreographically stunning and CGI was amazing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
VinceRocks123Jun 25, 2015
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A powerful allegorial epic of friendship and fortitude against corruption and evil, Peter Jackson and the studios of NewLine Cinema brings J.R. Tolkien's spectacular fantasy novel and the magical labrinyth of Middle Earth to life in the first installment in this adventurous franchise.

When the young hobbit Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood), finds himself left to inherit the One Ring, a ring that is said to contain the powerful evil spirit of Sauron, that can easily seduce and corrupt anyone who possesses it, he must embark on a adventure that will change him and those around him forever.

With the help of the powerfully wise yet humble wizard, Gandalf (Ian McKellen), a forest hunter named Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), an archer wielding elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom) a giant dwarf Gimli (John Rys-Davies), and a young knight Boromir (Sean Bean) including Frodo's closest friends Merry, Pippin, and Samwise, Frodo and the uncanny Fellowship must set on a legendary odyssey of overcoming shear darkness as Sauron's re-awakened forces begin to rise again from the ashes in pursuit and the legendary chase as well as the War of the Ring soon begins.

At first it seems to long and kind of boring to most viewers who aren't interested in fantasy and stuff. but upon seeing it, all three over and over after being impressed by its spectacular imagery, stunning effects, awesome editing sequences and impactful story, I soon realize that it was better than expected after seeing the entire trilogy very dark, long, painful and gritty but with all the patience God gave me it all made a worthwhile subject to watch and a very important one as well as one of my personal favorites. hands down to one of the most important films that I enjoyed as much as I did with Star Wars back in my old childhood.

Its one of the movies you need to see to believe and be captivated for more fun entertainment the best movie of 2001! its a film that draws out elements similar to Kurosawa and Bergman yet its a faithful adaption that is still enjoyable and vibrant in my eyes....
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
vexarezMay 29, 2015
Best part of The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Fascinating landscapes, lovely characters, brilliant actors and of course a perfectly told story.

I just can´t stop watching this move, and of course the others, too, again and again. I just love
Best part of The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Fascinating landscapes, lovely characters, brilliant actors and of course a perfectly told story.

I just can´t stop watching this move, and of course the others, too, again and again. I just love Frodo and Sam, they are perfect !
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
DrewtheDude85May 28, 2015
I love all three Lord of the Rings films, they all flow so well together and they really build up such an epic and amazing story. The first film definitely starts things right with the trilogy, It may not be as action packed when compared toI love all three Lord of the Rings films, they all flow so well together and they really build up such an epic and amazing story. The first film definitely starts things right with the trilogy, It may not be as action packed when compared to it sequels but it's still solid entertainment, and when the action does happen it's really a lot of fun to watch. This film also feels so magical and you will almost appreciate this film's lighthearted feeling once the sequels start taking darker turns. I remember already being in awe of this film near the beginning when Gandalf first enters the Shire just because of how cool the Shire environment is and mainly because of the beautiful music playing in the background. The characters are also very likable, each one feels unique in a certain way. Overall I would highly recommend not just this film but the entire LOTR trilogy to anyone who likes good films about epic adventures and fantasy settings. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
CinemaSinsMay 9, 2015
In the pantheon of fantasy writers, no diety is treated with greater reverence than J.R.R. Tolkien, who is regarded by most readers as the Father of Modern Fantasy. During the past three decades, the fantasy area in bookstores has expandedIn the pantheon of fantasy writers, no diety is treated with greater reverence than J.R.R. Tolkien, who is regarded by most readers as the Father of Modern Fantasy. During the past three decades, the fantasy area in bookstores has expanded from a minor subsection of science fiction to a major category in its own right. A couple dozen titles have been replaced by hundreds. Fantasy has gone from being a cult genre to entering the mainstream. This would not have happened without the popularity and influence of Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Nearly every published fantasy author acknowledges having read and been inspired by Tolkien's canon, and, while The Lord of the Rings may not be the longest or most complex fantasy series to date, it remains the standard against which all similar works are measured. It is the epic fantasy series.

When Tolkien began writing The Hobbit in the 1930s, he was unaware that he was essentially defining a genre. Tolkien was not the first author to write what would eventually be labeled as "fantasy", but his synthesis of elements - mythology, stories of larger-than-life heroism, the supernatural, and fairy tales - was unique. Nothing on the scale or scope of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings had previously been seen - not even the legends of King Arthur, Merlin, and Camelot were as well developed or executed.

To say that fantasy movies have not been a big draw at the box office is to understate the matter. A lot of this has had to do with the poor quality of the product. Consider the evidence: titles like Willow, Dragonheart, and Dungeons and Dragons. Finally, 2001 has seen the belated emergence of fantasy as a legitimate cinematic genre. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was one of the year's most anticipated releases and, by the end of December, it will be one of the top money-makers of the past 12 months. Now, along comes The Lord of the Rings, as anticipated for 30-50 year olds and Harry Potter was for their children.

As entertaining as Harry Potter may be, it cannot hold a candle to The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. With this production, Jackson has used The Lord of the Rings to re-invent fantasy for the cinema in the same way that the novel provided the blueprint for the written word. This astounding movie accomplishes what no other fantasy film has been able to do: transport viewers to an entirely different reality, immerse them in it, and maroon them there for nearly three hours. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring brings Middle Earth to glorious life. From the first moment of the first reel, I was there.

Lord of the Rings devotees will be delighted to learn that the motion picture adaptation is as faithful as one could imagine possible (and, consequently, is nearly three hours in length). Jackson and his co-screenwriters (Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens) do an excellent job condensing more than five hundred pages of text into a script that never feels choppy, uneven, or rushed. The Fellowship of the Ring moves fluidly and, in the process, exhilarates. Certain scenes have been cut or condensed in the name of pacing, and the role of one character (Arwen) has been expanded to enhance a romantic angle, something that was largely absent from Tolkien's work.

In crafting his vision of Middle Earth, Jackson has employed all of the tricks available to him: miniatures, deceptive camera angles, location shooting, impressive set design, and matte paintings. He has also made use of computer graphics, but not to the extent that another director might have. Thus, The Lord of the Rings has a less artificial appearance than might have been the case if Jackson had relied too heavily on CGI technology. Andrew Lesnie's camerawork has the grand scope expected in an epic motion picture, and Howard Shore's score, which is at times heroic and at times thoughtful, compliments the visuals without ever calling attention to itself.

The strength of Jackson's vision as depicted in The Fellowship of the Ring gives movie-goers cause to hope that we may be in the midst of a cinematic achievement. If The Two Towers and The Return of the King live up to the standard set by this film, The Lord of the Rings will become a milestone not only for its genre, but for motion pictures in general. But, regardless of what the future brings, the single movie we now have before us stands out as one of the most rousing examples of entertainment to reach multiplexes in a long time. At last, someone has figured out how to do an epic fantasy justice on the big screen.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
CinemaBlendMay 6, 2015
To say that fantasy movies have not been a big draw at the box office is to understate the matter. A lot of this has had to do with the poor quality of the product. Consider the evidence: titles like Willow, Dragonheart, and Dungeons andTo say that fantasy movies have not been a big draw at the box office is to understate the matter. A lot of this has had to do with the poor quality of the product. Consider the evidence: titles like Willow, Dragonheart, and Dungeons and Dragons. Finally, 2001 has seen the belated emergence of fantasy as a legitimate cinematic genre. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was one of the year's most anticipated releases and, by the end of December, it will be one of the top money-makers of the past 12 months. Now, along comes The Lord of the Rings, as anticipated for 30-50 year olds and Harry Potter was for their children.

As entertaining as Harry Potter may be, it cannot hold a candle to The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. With this production, Jackson has used The Lord of the Rings to re-invent fantasy for the cinema in the same way that the novel provided the blueprint for the written word. This astounding movie accomplishes what no other fantasy film has been able to do: transport viewers to an entirely different reality, immerse them in it, and maroon them there for nearly three hours. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring brings Middle Earth to glorious life. From the first moment of the first reel, I was there.

First and foremost, The Lord of the Rings is an adventure, and, in that, it is relentlessly successful. One does not need to have read the books to appreciate the movie. The background is explained concisely in a voiceover prologue, and the action proceeds in a straightforward manner. As long as one enjoys a well-crafted adventure yarn set against the backdrop of a mythical clash between good and evil, The Lord of the Rings will satisfy. Like all great movies of this sort, this one is characterized by tremendous action scenes punctuated by moments of rest and reflection. So, we have the flight from the Shire, followed by the council at Rivendell, followed by the hazardous trek through Moria (the movie's high point), followed by the encounter with Galadriel, followed by the sundering of the fellowship. Along the way, there is triumph, sorrow, and a little philosophical depth. The Lord of the Rings emphasizes two themes: the importance of brotherhood and the need for true strength to come from within.

In crafting his vision of Middle Earth, Jackson has employed all of the tricks available to him: miniatures, deceptive camera angles, location shooting, impressive set design, and matte paintings. He has also made use of computer graphics, but not to the extent that another director might have. Thus, The Lord of the Rings has a less artificial appearance than might have been the case if Jackson had relied too heavily on CGI technology. Andrew Lesnie's camerawork has the grand scope expected in an epic motion picture, and Howard Shore's score, which is at times heroic and at times thoughtful, compliments the visuals without ever calling attention to itself.

The Lord of the Rings is not an actors' movie, but each member of the cast acquits himself or herself well. Of special note are Ian McKellan, who presents Gandalf as a vulnerable and sympathetic figure; Ian Holm, whose Bilbo Baggins is a weary and tortured individual; and Elijah Wood, who shows the gradual changes in Frodo as he is transformed from a carefree hobbit to the person upon whom the fate of the world rests. Some recognizable names fill small roles - Liv Tyler is surprisingly good as Arwen; Cate Blanchett is cool and regal as Galadriel; and Christopher Lee brings his chilling presence to the part of the treacherous, traitorous Sauruman.

The strength of Jackson's vision as depicted in The Fellowship of the Ring gives movie-goers cause to hope that we may be in the midst of a cinematic achievement. If The Two Towers and The Return of the King live up to the standard set by this film, The Lord of the Rings will become a milestone not only for its genre, but for motion pictures in general. But, regardless of what the future brings, the single movie we now have before us stands out as one of the most rousing examples of entertainment to reach multiplexes in a long time. At last, someone has figured out how to do an epic fantasy justice on the big screen.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
MovieManiac83Apr 23, 2015
In the pantheon of fantasy writers, no diety is treated with greater reverence than J.R.R. Tolkien, who is regarded by most readers as the Father of Modern Fantasy. During the past three decades, the fantasy area in bookstores has expandedIn the pantheon of fantasy writers, no diety is treated with greater reverence than J.R.R. Tolkien, who is regarded by most readers as the Father of Modern Fantasy. During the past three decades, the fantasy area in bookstores has expanded from a minor subsection of science fiction to a major category in its own right. A couple dozen titles have been replaced by hundreds. Fantasy has gone from being a cult genre to entering the mainstream. This would not have happened without the popularity and influence of Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Nearly every published fantasy author acknowledges having read and been inspired by Tolkien's canon, and, while The Lord of the Rings may not be the longest or most complex fantasy series to date, it remains the standard against which all similar works are measured. It is the epic fantasy series.

To say that fantasy movies have not been a big draw at the box office is to understate the matter. A lot of this has had to do with the poor quality of the product. Consider the evidence: titles like Willow, Dragonheart, and Dungeons and Dragons. Finally, 2001 has seen the belated emergence of fantasy as a legitimate cinematic genre. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was one of the year's most anticipated releases and, by the end of December, it will be one of the top money-makers of the past 12 months. Now, along comes The Lord of the Rings, as anticipated for 30-50 year olds and Harry Potter was for their children.

As entertaining as Harry Potter may be, it cannot hold a candle to The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. With this production, Jackson has used The Lord of the Rings to re-invent fantasy for the cinema in the same way that the novel provided the blueprint for the written word. This astounding movie accomplishes what no other fantasy film has been able to do: transport viewers to an entirely different reality, immerse them in it, and maroon them there for nearly three hours. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring brings Middle Earth to glorious life. From the first moment of the first reel, I was there.

In crafting his vision of Middle Earth, Jackson has employed all of the tricks available to him: miniatures, deceptive camera angles, location shooting, impressive set design, and matte paintings. He has also made use of computer graphics, but not to the extent that another director might have. Thus, The Lord of the Rings has a less artificial appearance than might have been the case if Jackson had relied too heavily on CGI technology. Andrew Lesnie's camerawork has the grand scope expected in an epic motion picture, and Howard Shore's score, which is at times heroic and at times thoughtful, compliments the visuals without ever calling attention to itself.

The Lord of the Rings is not an actors' movie, but each member of the cast acquits himself or herself well. Of special note are Ian McKellan, who presents Gandalf as a vulnerable and sympathetic figure; Ian Holm, whose Bilbo Baggins is a weary and tortured individual; and Elijah Wood, who shows the gradual changes in Frodo as he is transformed from a carefree hobbit to the person upon whom the fate of the world rests. Some recognizable names fill small roles - Liv Tyler is surprisingly good as Arwen; Cate Blanchett is cool and regal as Galadriel; and Christopher Lee brings his chilling presence to the part of the treacherous, traitorous Sauruman.

The strength of Jackson's vision as depicted in The Fellowship of the Ring gives movie-goers cause to hope that we may be in the midst of a cinematic achievement. If The Two Towers and The Return of the King live up to the standard set by this film, The Lord of the Rings will become a milestone not only for its genre, but for motion pictures in general. But, regardless of what the future brings, the single movie we now have before us stands out as one of the most rousing examples of entertainment to reach multiplexes in a long time. At last, someone has figured out how to do an epic fantasy justice on the big screen.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews